The USMC puts on a clinic on how to lower standards to accommodate women while denying that anything is being done to accommodate women. From Infantry Officer Course lowers requirement for hikes. Brig. Gen. Jason Q. Bohm leads the way, explaining that the goal was not to reduce the number of students who failed, but to increase the number who passed:

…it was not about lowering attrition, it was about making students more successful to complete the course.

Inspired by the masterful work of Gen Bohm, Marine Corps Times senior reporter Shawn Snow tries his own hand. Snow explains that the changes followed a full court press by feminists to lower the standards to move women into a previously all male field.

The Corps has come under criticism regarding the notoriously grueling 13-week infantry course that so far has only seen one woman successfully graduate.

But the changes can’t be due to an effort to help women, since the class in question used to be a male dominated field:

But most washouts from the IOC are men — only 35 women have attempted the course, and only five of those have attended the IOC after the job field was opened to women.

Most importantly, when the Corps lowered the standards, it had nothing to do with lowering standards:

The recent changes, the Corps argues, have nothing to do with gender integration in the combat arms job fields or a watering down of any standards.

Key to obscuring the change is to have all of the students continue to go through the motions:

While the Corps has modified graduation requirements to accurately reflect the infantry manual, Marines attending the course will still have to participate in all the events.

…

“The course is as hard as it’s ever been. We did not do away with any training events,” Bohm said.

And while the standards haven’t been lowered as part of the effort to integrate women, the standard was lowered as a result of the push to integrate women:

One of the evaluated hikes was changed to meet gender-neutral standards referred to as Military Occupational Specialty Specific Performance Standards, or MSPS, Bohm said.

The 2015 NDAA called for the service branches to draft gender-neutral standards as the services began gender integration into the combat jobs previously closed to women.

That hike that was changed is the 15-km hike, which must be completed within three hours while humping 105 lbs of kit and weapons.

But as good as he is, even Snow can’t keep up with the General’s masterful use of doublethink:

But the Corps has struggled to adequately explain how its changes to the IOC are not an attempt to make the course easier, especially if one of the intended goals is to increase graduation numbers.

Back to that march that was made easier as a result of the push to integrate women (but doesn’t represent a watering down of standards to accommodate women). Here the USMC has outdone itself by creating a structure where the men will have to carry the heavy gear for the women, all with plausible deniability (emphasis mine):

Previously, Marines had to conduct a single file forced march carrying heavy and medium weapon systems that could weigh anywhere from 125 lbs-150 lbs.

“There was a lot of angst about our students having to carry 150 lbs,” Bohm said.

Now the hike is done as a tactical displacement, where Marines practice bounding during a simulated attack. The Marines are no longer required to single-handedly carry all 125-150 lbs, and can pass the weight off to a buddy as they tire.

Pure mockery but don’t you dare criticize the wimmenz! They are just as capable as men if not more so. I mean look at Wandah Womah, she kicks ass and then some… did she need to pass this grueling course to kick Nazi ass? Didn’t think so! Proof positive that she beasts kick just as much ass as males.

Interestingly, the same thing happened to the mighty Roman Empire. They changed their training grounds that created a military fighting force unlike any other in ancient world into “military barracks” filled with women and children of foreign barbarian volunteer soldiers. The Romans lowered the military standards to the point they become useless. By the fall of the Western Roman Empire, only 1 in 50 soldiers was Roman (Italian). No wonder their military faced catastrophe after catastrophe until it collapsed.

The fastest way to destroy anything is not to make it go away completely. The way to do it is to lower its standards to the point it becomes completely ineffective. It does not disappear; it becomes useless and weak.

“Nothing in politics ever happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – FDR (leftwing globalist Progressive hero)

Fire depts. hiring women who cannot lift a passed out victim over 70lbs inside a burning building; police departments hiring skinny women that cannot effect an arrest; lowering standards in military to allow women to join in, so all military units become weak and ineffective.

This is all by design. The stated goal is to “hire more women”, but reality is to muzzle the military might of the USA. The left believes USA military = evil, so the way to destroy it is to weaken it from within. They cannot simply disband the military, so they cut funding, hire weak soldiers, and avoid upgrading aging equipment.

Destroying our military from within is really why “standards” and “basic requirements” are being lowered.

A chain is only as strong as its WEAKEST link. Give it a tug and the whole chain snaps. Think about it. -_-

Women don’t belong in the Marines unless they can complete the EXACT same standards as the men. Even if they pass the physical standard, they probably couldn’t meet the mental toughness required.

Offloading 150 pounds of equipment to a ‘buddy’ (man) during a march is tantamount to accommodating inferior cadets. This is complete horseshit.

That’s all well & good for a ‘feel good’ badge during (relative) peace time. When a real conflict breaks out, these women will piss their pants and play the “I’m just a girl” card…..and avoid deployment by any means possible.

That’s all well & good for a ‘feel good’ badge during (relative) peace time. When a real conflict breaks out, these women will piss their pants and play the “I’m just a girl” card…..and avoid deployment by any means possible.

They will not only pass their equipment over to their male counterparts but their pussies as well. Getting pregnant is the macho girl marines get-outta-war card. They never leave home without it.

Except that the “buddy” (e.g. female) won’t be able to carry anyone else’s pack (or her own) much less the wounded as a MALE Marine rifleman must. The vast majority of Marine Corps females (including officeresses) are relatively safe in the rear with the gear forgoing the killing and dying part. Females constitute less than 7 percent of the Marine Corps.

If their number increased into double digits and they were sent to front line fighting units, these would fail and the units rapidly deteriorate as the wounding and dying part of being in the Marine Corps manifested in real world battles leading to engagement defeats for the U.S..

I worked with a lot of Marines during my time in the “gator” Navy and none of the few women in the Marine Corps I met could discharge the duties required in a real world combat zone as a rifleman. It’s called rifleMAN for good reason. They did make good typists though, safe in the rear with the gear. And the Marine Officeresses were bad medicine for the Marines for reasons I’ll not go into here.

While it’s fun to watch liberals try to lie about the blindingly obvious, these are military officers lying about the blindingly obvious. What will do more damage to morale, officers forcing women into male military spaces or officers telling soldiers that what they see ain’t so?

And they will still state ‘our brave men and women of our armed forces…’ knowing full well that the wimmenz are not doing the ‘brave’ actions or duties that men do, thus further eroding the male satisfaction received for defending ones nation. It’s all a big mockery. A game to erode spaces where men sharpen their metal, where men can be men and where men can excel and compete.

feminsthaterI mean look at Wandah Womah, she kicks ass and then some… did she need to pass this grueling course to kick Nazi ass?

Well, she’s an alien with advanced technology for a start, arguably “born to kick ass”. That’s tedious enough, but “Wonder Woman” also is set in World War 1.0, which is one big reason I didnt’ bother with it. There are still men in my family who wear a lapel poppy on Nov. 11…

(In the film, Gary Cooper uses a Luger to stop Imperial German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, because the movie company could make that pistol work with blanks. But we all know what kind of pistol Sgt. York stopped 6 close-range attackers with, don’t we?)

There’s not enough Moxie in the universe to bring a woman up to the standards of that marginally literate Tennessee hillbilly plus his rifle.

I disagree. The US is more socialist now than in 1991, and is actively weakening itself. What was the point of the alleged ‘victory’ if destroying the USMC by lowering standards is a goal of extreme importance?

The country that won the Cold War was China.

Why?

i) It is much stronger economically than it was in 1991.
ii) It was neutral after around 1975 or so.
iii) It has wasted no resources or lives in wars since 1979.

That’s right. The country that won the Cold War is the one that focused on its economy with no other distractions.

AnonSo there is NO ONE in the USMC leadership that is brave enough to make a basic case for standards? Even though 75% of the public will support their argument?

Little problem with “some” and “all”? Or maybe you didn’t pay attention to the “women in military” debates over the last 25 to 30 years? Don’t understand that “chain of command” still is an operative structure in the Navy? I know you’re older than 15, even though someties you write that way. So what’s the actual issue that prevents you from grasping “how we got here”?

Right back at you, Anon:
Have you challenged the HR department at your place of employment over Affirmative Action for women? If not, why not? Aren’t you brave enough to make a basic case for standards?

[T]hese are military officers lying about the blindingly obvious. What will do more damage to morale, officers forcing women into male military spaces or officers telling soldiers that what they see ain’t so?

Anyone who has spent more than a week on active duty in the U.S. military knows that lying and playing politics are the sole activities of today’s flag-rank officers (i.e., Generals and Admirals). This is why almost no one has any real respect for them, nor do troops in the field trust them (if Chesty Puller, George Patton, or Bill Halsey were on active duty in today’s Marine Corps, Army, and Navy, respectively, they would have been cashiered long ago by the weasely, scum-sucking politicians now in control and would never have been given them the opportunity to be the superior wartime commanders that they were).

This is what happened after Obama had the biggest purge of Generals and other military personnel since Stalin. He even gave the title of Admiral to a lesbian woman who from what I have heard never even rowed a boat. There are many trickle down effects which are obvious from the posts here. Other NATO countries with the exception of Eastern Europe are suffering the same.

Dalrock called out the basic concept in all this, military, church, academia; whatever realm needs more feminizing. I remember reading it during one of my first forays into the androsphere and kept it ready to hand.

“The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.”

Instead of moving goals posts this is incrementally moving the starting line.

According to Jim Donald, this rot started in the 1860s. Up through the Crimean War, everyone who fought in battle outranked everyone who didn’t fight. Cooks, nurses, suppliers, etc. weren’t even “soldiers”, they were “camp followers”, and those who were female worked vertically by day and horizontally by night.

Anyone who has spent more than a week on active duty in the U.S. military knows that lying and playing politics are the sole activities of today’s flag-rank officers (i.e., Generals and Admirals). This is why almost no one has any real respect for them, nor do troops in the field trust them (if Chesty Puller, George Patton, or Bill Halsey were on active duty in today’s Marine Corps, Army, and Navy, respectively, they would have been cashiered long ago by the weasely, scum-sucking politicians now in control and would never have been given them the opportunity to be the superior wartime commanders that they were).

My understanding is that this has always been the case during peace time, although clearly we are reaching new lows in this regard. Patton for example certainly didn’t thrive in the peacetime Army, and even during war time was taken out of service for slapping a soldier. The Germans were incredulous that we would take our best battlefield commander out of the fight, which at least we were able to use to sell the Pas de Calais deception prior to D Day. One of the things peacetime Patton did to anger his superiors was to make waves in 1937 about what he saw as a risk of a Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

Another example that comes to mind is General Lee of the Civil War. Prior to the war Lee was a lieutenant colonel in a backwater posting in West Texas. Yet when the war broke out, both the North and the South wanted him to be their commanding general. Everyone knew he was the best man to lead a war, but without a war he was of little importance to the Army.

Have you challenged the HR department at your place of employment over Affirmative Action for women? If not, why not? Aren’t you brave enough to make a basic case for standards?

Yes, we have. Only 10% of the employees are women, and they happen to be fully competent (which is why only 10% are women).

What’s the actual breakdown, 2 women out of 20 employees or something like that? Workable at the contract-shop or startup level, but above that size it’s much more difficult to maintain even with sharp lawyers on retainer. It is certain you do not work for any large organization such as Intel, or the Department of Defense, therefore your comment about bravery in the Marine Corps rings hollow.

Plus you have no clue how the Marine Corps wound up in this situation, apparently not having paid any attention at all to the issue; ignorance, in other words.

Anonymous Reader is the embodiment of confusion and disorientation, combined with an ethos of never, ever fighting back against ‘feminism’ (which is why he excuses it in the USMC).

Three lies in one sentence is not something for a man to take pride in.

Dalrock to FreerikerMy understanding is that this has always been the case during peace time, although clearly we are reaching new lows in this regard.

Because in addition to the usual peacetime political gamesmanship within the services we have added on top the huge brick of feminist blank-slate lies that everyone must at least pretend to believe. It’s as if every service had to pretend that paraplegics are exactly as capable as men who have both legs, and anyone who dared to point out otherwise could expect disciplinary proceedings that could lead to discharge. In case of war, legless pilots, tankers and infantry would not be able to meet the challenge for reasons of simple biology. Just like women.

Lost PatrolOne can of course do this all day long so I will immediately stop before being told to stop. But use your imagination to picture the future woman in these scenarios.

It’s easy, they’re not in the scenario at all due to pregnancy, or they are in a rear area, or they are likely casualties. Maybe a few in the picture as corpsman / medic. Maybe. Yeah, I know about the National Guard unit in Iraq that counter-ambushed the jihadis: a convoy of truck drivers & logistics types including women fought well for the few minutes they had to, it’s still got nothing to do with actual infantry combat. GI Jane was a movie…

The people who are forcing these policy changes onto the services will not be in the field to endure the results. It is ironic that the left-wing Baby Boomers who ranted about “old men sending young men to die” in the 1960’s have since then become old men who want to send young women to die along with young men.

The US is headed for a huge crash; maybe from foreign interference or maybe from refugees and illegal aliens. It’s only a matter of time. Many countries in Western Europe are already lost. I suggest that all men stockpile food and water, train themselves in a vocation that will be in demand when society crumbles, and prepare to enjoy the decline.

it was not about lowering attrition, it was about making students more successful to complete the course.”

You know another way for students to be more successful in completing any physical course? Start working out before you even consider joining! Not that hard! And there should be no excuses, especially in a country that has bend over backwards to accommodate women.

caligulaThat’s almost as good as “It’s not a quota, it’s a numerical goal.”

Imagine being a career officer with 20+ years in having to put up a good front implementing a really bad policy, the cognitive dissonance would be painful. No way to know what General Bohm’s actual opinion on the issue is, of course. There are officers in all the services who have totally bought into the feminist lies [1] and there are also officers trying to minimize the damage as best they can, because that is where they see their duty.

A man who sees clearly, who wants to remain in the service for whatever reasons, is going to have to wear a mask at almost all times. It’s got to be tedious. Hopefully they get some mental support from outsiders like Dalrock who continue to point out the Empress’s new frock ain’t nothing look at.

[1] Something to bear in mind is how many civilian men in ther 40’s either buy the feminist lies, or don’t know any alternative way to think. We are constantly brainwashed with feminism, and the service acadamies are now just as bad in that regards as any standard university. Remember last year when two West Point cadets had their same-sex “marriage”? Nobody dared to dissent in public.

Cloudbuster: No doubt if a male trainee refuses to carry a female trainee’s gear, it is him that will be punished, not the marine who isn’t capable of pulling her own weight.

Back in the early 1980s, I saw a documentary on PBS, about women in Army bootcamp. It followed an all-woman platoon (squad?) through training.

One woman couldn’t finished her march, so the male sergeant had her sit away from the other soldiers, yelling at her, “You don’t deserve to sit with those soldiers who tried.”

Later, she was kicked out, along with a few others. She was interviewed immediately after being chewed out by some C.O. and let go, and she was happy, smiling. Saying she knew the yelling was all BS and that she was happy to leave the Army.

The documentary made it seem as though the women would go through the same rigors as the men. But this was the early 1980s.

“Faced with towering attrition rates…” – I wonder if the feminization of the military is part of the reason for this? I know one reason I got out of the Navy was because of the placement of women on ships. People had no clue about what the environment on a ship was like before the integration of women, and what the environment was like afterwards. It was like day and night. For some reason everyone though it was like Star Trek.

The other thing that really bothers me over women in the military is that to this day men still have to register for the draft while women do not. What is up with that? The only thing I can figure is that it goes against the principle that women should be allowed to do whatever they want to do.

@Kentucky Headhunter
LOL, why not? I see girls “carrying” around 300 lbs all the time.

@cnystrom62
Agreed. I think women should only be exempt from signing up for the draft if given a religious waver, for the few unicorns left out there that believe their place is in the kitchen making their men sammiches.

So what, exactly has the USMC been doing up to this point?
Isn’t the point of the training to produce the best combination of fighting / killing/surviving machines your country can produce? So if the ”new standards” are brought in to ”more accurately reflect the manual”, why weren’t they in before?

And if you can offload your gear to a ”buddy”, what does (s)he do with the gear (s)he is carrying?

Has the General also asked himself if the enemies of his country are now somehow different, so that it’s perfectly okay to put flabby men on the front line, as well as women? Is the USA now threatened by armies of chicks and midgets?

The Marines are no longer required to single-handedly carry all 125-150 lbs, and can pass the weight off to a buddy as they tire.

This is actually good. As women will require the remaining males to carry the added weight, the USMC will swiftly see an exodus of any male that is not a complete whiteknight/beta orbiter. As he is carrying an extremely heavy weight, both he and the female will be swiftly picked off by the enemies.

This is a necessary process of filtration, since the key to toppling the edifice is the eradication of whiteknights/manginas/cuckservatives.

“The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.”

Instead of moving goals posts this is incrementally moving the starting line.

Of course. That is why cuckservatives (and most Republicans in general) are just as much to blame as the most radical SJW. They have turned ceding ground and surrendering into a full-time profession.

Recall the prior thread where some cuckservatives were exposed for thinking that writing an article in mild protest comprises ‘having won against leftism’. They have no awareness that not only was no law repealed, but they were even advanced.

Abstractly this situation is very similar to what many churches are like; the partially-but-not-totally SJW converged organization. Not to name any denominations.

Imagine a bigger than average church with 400 people regularly attending. A governing board of 7 men gets partly converged, and as a result one fine day there is a vote on whether women should participate in taking up the collection. Imagine the usual arguments of “inclusion” and “diversity” and “equal before God”, etc. So the vote is 4-3, the next Sunday women are joining with men in collection.

Now what? Some families will protest and threaten to leave if the policy isn’t reversed. Some of those will in fact leave. Others will stay for social reasons, some will stay to push back, etc.

What if you’re one of those 3 men who voted against? Do you resign and leave because of what you see as a clear principle being violated, do you resign but remain, do you remain on the board to resist? These are all options, they are all within the realm of honorable. Further innovations would drive more families out. There are plenty of examples from real life, and this is how independent churches can implode – denominations, too. If I remember right, Hmm mentioned that his individual church might leave their denomination (PCA) if the national governing body votes to approve women as deacons, for example.

The best policy would be to vote down such a change, and urge the men who brought it up to go to another church. Flat out resistance from the start. But most of us don’t think in those terms, at least not at the beginning of a conflict.

Second-stage feminism with its delusions of male-female interchangeability has been pushing for this for years, and thanks to the Clinton / Bush / Obama trifecta have gotten a lot of what they wanted. None of those feminists of either sex are ever going to be carrying a weapon and a ruck even in training, let alone combat. Slow motion convergence works that way.

Churchgoing people can find another church, or start another church, but we don’t have that option when it comes to national defense. The only way to really reverse this policy would be via a purge of officers to reverse the Obama purge, a campaign that would take years. In the mean time, Marine officers appear to be doing what they can to minimize the damage. That’s far from ideal, but it is something.

All this discussion about Marines makes me think back to the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men”. It’s sort of fun to imagine what Col. Nathan R. Jessup would have to say about training standards and women. And just imagine how much easier it would have been for Private Santiago if he were in the Marines today. All he would have to do is claim to be a masculine-presenting transgendered lesbian, and then he could have had one of his buddies carry his pack for him.

Thirty-six crew members [of 360 females] of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship’s deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say.

More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship.

Why stop with just carrying a woman’s gear? If she is too tired to keep marching, maybe a man can carry her too. It would only be temporary. Once the military is able to deploy their new six-wheeled “mule” robots designed to carry an infantry squad’s gear, we can give women preferential seating on those while the men march alongside.

This is what happens when most of your politicians are queer parasites.
They destroy hetero-normative shit just for fun.
As in “destroy this entire country” just for fun.
But none of you queers are man enough to do anything about it.

@Casey
”Women don’t belong in the Marines unless they can complete the EXACT same standards as the men. Even if they pass the physical standard, they probably couldn’t meet the mental toughness required.”

As long as they draft women at the same rate if men and make them fight on the front lines at the same rate as men it should be fine. But we all know this is just so they can have some quick combat experience and be made into leadership. A scam that we should be ashamed of as a nation.

My understanding is that this has always been the case during peace time, although clearly we are reaching new lows in this regard.

Yes, because the “wars” we are now fighting are against enemies far weaker militarily than ourselves. Thus no genuine military threat to the nation exists. This leaves the top brass with plenty of time to play political games.

“We are finding that there are a large number of trainees that come in that quite frankly just physically don’t have the capacity to throw a hand grenade 20 to 25 to 30 meters. In 10 weeks, we are on a 48-hour period; you are just not going to be able to teach someone how to throw if they haven’t thrown growing up.”

Interesting side note: whereas in the original “Overboard” Goldie Hawn’s character looses her memory, and in a deed of “revenge” is made into a “submissive wife” by Kurt Russel’s character, guess what the storyline is of the 2018 remake?

“The main roles are reversed from the 1987 original. Derbez will portray a wealthy man who falls off of his yacht and is found by Faris’ character, a single mother who convinces him that he is her husband.”

Reading the comments section, (particulaely dalrocks comments on Robert E Lee) I realoze that the real reason why there is a massive push to lpwer standards and inclide women, is because in peacetime the army can be an easy way for weasels and sociopaths to gain social respect that they do not deserve.

Bringing women in has many benefits. First, wimen bring drama, and for manipulative weasels, drama can be used as a weapon, or to create crisis that the weasels can “solve”.

Second, in order to have women in the army, the atmosphere has to made safe for them. Less combative, less physically demanding. All of which are good for two faced weasel types as well. Weasel types are cowards, they only joined to steal someone else’s courage.

Third, the physical capabilities of a weasel are less than that of a normal man. Not because of physical weakness, but because of a lifelong aversion to hard work. Lowering the physical standards makes it easier for these creeps to do the tasks, or even avoid such tasks altogether. You can even have generations of creeps promoting themselves and their progeny through the ranks without needing to do anything at all. After all, a “buddy” can carry stuff.

This situation is very very dangerous. Look at Persia during Alexanders time. One can easily argue that internal Persian corruption did more to destroy the empire than anything Alexander did. Keep in mind the Persia of that day was a benevolent government, not the movie nonsense we saw in. “300”.

“The new BCT does, however, do away with hand grenade qualification and land navigation course qualification as graduation requirements.”

This is more of the same that is seen in the OP. We’re still going to make them do things (no lower standards!), it’s just that some of it won’t be held against them if they can’t do it.

“We are finding that there are a large number of trainees that come in that quite frankly just physically don’t have the capacity to throw a hand grenade 20 to 25 to 30 meters.”

Well, you definitely don’t want the girl soldier beside you throwing their grenade only far enough to get you both, so we’re going to practice throwing them, it’s just that there is no longer a graded requirement for distance.

Until such future time (which will probably happen) that the projectile launchers are all made out of unobtanium the current gear weighs what it weighs. If you want it, and its ammunition and batteries or whatever along with you, you have to bring it.

A man being asked to handle those items at Infantry Officer Course is not coming in off the street from a standing start. He has been tested, evaluated and trained around the clock for 3 months as a candidate to see if he is even wanted. If he is, he will be commissioned and enter another 6 month pipeline of basic training as a Marine officer which will include a lot of physical activity. The smallest man present will have demonstrated the ability to lift and carry 125 lbs by the time it’s over. He will have been brought to that point even if he couldn’t do it 9 months ago.

It is from this group that men (and now women!) will move on to the IOC. It is a running start. They can handle the weight.

Last Sunday I attended an event which I had long been looking forward to in a local town the event being spread across two halls with I suppose an attendance of about three or four hundred souls perhaps more and closer to a thousand. I did not see even one woman so no standards were being modified to meet some gender neutral objective but then as I could not help but observe that none of the attendees looked like the sort of men who might have wives and girlfriends.

‘Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive’ as Wordsworth wrote though about something rather different.

By 1980, they’d been putting women into the Navy for five years or so. They couldn’t go to sea, but they ate all the shoreside billets that use to go to sailors in between tours with Fleet squadrons. You need a break from being at sea, you could cut a deal for a couple of years on the beach back then after four years. Hilarious then was chicks would sit on the beach, make 2nd Class (E-5) and actually take up instructor slots in type of aircraft schools. Those schools are heavy in servicing and maneuvering around those airplanes while at sea. And I would wonder after being offered only another 4 years at sea to re-enlist (the chicks occupied every single shore billet there was in Naval Air at that point), how the HELL does a woman that’s never operated on a flight deck TEACH about being on a flight deck during operations afloat? I was told best practice is never to repeat the question in mixed company. No sense bringing up the obvious. And so out I went. I don’t know how in hell the youngsters get through a single hitch, let alone make it through to retirement. Ye Gawds.

“Casey says:
February 22, 2018 at 11:57 am
…That’s all well & good for a ‘feel good’ badge during (relative) peace time. When a real conflict breaks out, these women will piss their pants and play the “I’m just a girl” card…..and avoid deployment by any means possible.”

I both saw (and heard about) this nonsense when we we deployed for Desert Shield/Storm: “I’m just a girl…”, and getting pregnant just before having to deploy (wonderful reason for bringing a child into the world, isn’t it?). Hell, women were doing the ‘get pregnant just before deployment’ scam even before then, in peacetime; in fact, they became infamous for it.
So glad that I NEVER served aboard a command that had women in the crew; I heard too many stories about guys getting screwed over by some over- privileged harpy.

The grenade range was one of my favorite days of basic training, but I went to an all male one (Fort Benning).

You had to stand there with a drill sergeant, pull the pin, throw it, and get down behind cover. Those little tiny apple sized grenades pack a tremendous punch. You could feel it in the ground you were laying on. Big adrenaline rush. Just throwing an inert grenade would be boring.

I went during the tail end of when they could put their hands on you too. I never got hit, but I saw a few people get thrown to the ground for doing stupid unsafe stuff during basic rifle marksmanship.

I have never been in the military, so I’d appreciate any current or former military guys weighing in, but it would seem to me that having women in combat would be a clear and present danger to their male colleagues. When the women eventually tire or fail or get themselves into untenable situations (which they inevitably will) it will be left up to their male colleagues to pick up the slack putting themselves in great harms way. They have to fight off the enemy with less manpower than they thought they had, and they have to protect the women who can’t hack it. Does this sound likely?

@Robert What?
I am not a vet, but many friends are. Some went to the sandbox.
It’s not theoretical, but “combat” is not “combat”. There’s a difference between

A. Co-driver of a fuel tanker truck in Kuwait during Desert Shield
B. Part of a larger convoy during Desert Storm that gets lost and drives into bad country
C. Counter-ambush against light forces on a regular resupply route
D. Patrolling Basra in 2004
E. Clearing Fallujah of jihadi resistance
F. Counter-insurgancy work at a forward base in NowhereStan

All the above can be classified as “combat”, but the details are hugely different. Counter ambush by truck drivers requires a carbine and a simple Load Bearing Equipment setup of at least 6 magazines; that fight will be more like an extended 3-gun match. Taking a defensive position at a forward base during a serious attack means adding grenades and other stuff. Patrolling a town means body armor, a couple of gallons of water, many magazines, grenades, etc. Combat in Fallujah? Add a couple of boxes of machinegun ammo (7.62) to the load just for start…

This is all at the corporal / lance corporal level. Officers must do more, sometimes much more.
The Navy and Air Force have a whole other set of issues.

The vets here can correct / add to my rant above as they see fit.

tl;dr
Women in the mililtary may well wind up in combat situations. They can be a small asset, or a big liability, or anything in between.

Yep, you brought up something off topic here, but here is .2 cents on that. The reason men do not read many female authors is found in this quote from the article you mentioned by Jen Pollock:

“Christian men—of all men—should be the most literate when it comes to reading the work of women writers, knowing that we image God best in our complementarity of male and female. So why aren’t men more widely reading women writers?”

The answer lies in her quote above. The key word is “complementarity”. She answered her own question and yet is clueless about why. *roll eyes*

Also, the subject matter and quality of writing of books is what counts. My father read Agatha Christie books over male mystery authors all the time. Quality and subject matter! 😉

Men look at quality and aesthetics of a product (regardless of product), not whether a writer is is of a certain race or gender. Too many women have the “herd mentality” and that is why they are so concerned with male vs female readership instead of overall reader interest and to adjust subject matters to interest more male readers. Most men also work insane FT jobs and have little time for reading, when comparing to stay-at-home moms.

The poor selection of subject matters in books is another reason why boys are filing in our public schools. Everything inside classrooms in female-oriented. Books written by women that have subject matters that only interest women do not engage the boys. The issue is that males are hardwire to seek out things that make sense to them and are of interest. They cannot feel interested to read stuff just because it was written by a certain “member of the herd” of a specific race or specific gender.

@Sigma:

I am 35, work PT and law school PT x3 nights a week and I can easily carry 150lbs pack and a rifle and 4 mags, just so you know. I am a fit male and have always worked out since I was 17. One trick is to wear a “weight vest” at home when I am not working out, which forces my body to continually train by doing daily regular chores. 😉 Walking 15km is another issue, but I can walk a good 3-5 miles with that weight. Fitness is a lifestyle and mindset. I make my appearance a priority and being in good physical shape is a priority for me.

But regardless of how many men here can carry that weight, it is NOT our JOBS to walk that distance with military gear. That is the job of military to do and people who enlist KNOW the requirements before they join! If women recruits cannot meet the requirements of that combat infantry job, they should NOT be allowed to do it. There are tons of other non-combat military jobs women can do in military (and have done beginning with George Washington’s leadership of Continental Army).

It seems that fewer and fewer people in our country have any pride in their jobs. They eschew their duties AND obligations of their chosen professions! Women cannot perform military work. Cops that will not engage a 19-year old psychotic terrorist in Broward County, Florida where school kids were being killed while armed trained sheriff deputies stood around and did nothing. We have female firefighters that cannot lift more then 75lbs (good luck if you are passed out from smoke during a fire), teacher who has “child phobia” after decades teaching, and EMTs that have fear of blood or strange people.

My father was in the USAF for four years during EIsenhower peacetime 1950’s (1955-1959). He signed up for a “four year” stint instead of the “standard two” at the time because he was promised more money upon an “honorable discharge”

He hated the whole culture of the military…..but he did serve, complete and recieved his Honorable Discharge. He entered with one stripe (airman) and left with one stripe (airman). My father fully agrees that he had an “attitude problem” while serving in the USAF.

He was a farm boy and a hunter so he knew how to shoot, and qualifying with the weapon / marksmanship was not a problem for him.

He did tell me once while stationed in South Vietnam (yes, the USAF had crews on the ground at Nah Trang in 1957 / 1958) that he gave a ‘snarky-smart-alec’ remark to a Chief Master Sergeant. Now my dad (hardly a weakling, and a lean and slender 6’7″ in his prime) said “……before I finished the last word, I was greeted with an stiff upper-cut, knocked flat out on the ground, then kicked several times. This CMS then spit on me, called me a ‘dumb polack’ (polish last name) and told me to report an hour earlier to his staff tomorrow morning to fix my attitude. I didn’t know what had hit me, and for the rest of my tour at that base I shut my mouth.”

I feel like this is arguing the conclusion but accepting the premise. I don’t care if Wonder Woman herself comes in and can destroy every standard like it is nothing. She still doesn’t belong in the military.

I went through the Army’s infantry officer course a few years back (men only). If anyone fell back more than 30m or so from the group on some ruck marches, that person had to be carried for a while. One man would carry the extra weapon, another would put the extra ruck on his chest. The man who carried the person also passed his ruck on to someone else to carry on their chest. Pace was maintained.

Pass/fail marches were almost always individual events, though, with no assistance allowed.

ChristianCool, for adolescent boys, I recommend the James Bond series. The Ian Fleming books, not the many post-Fleming Bond books (with the exception of Colonel Sun, written shortly after Fleming’s death).

I read the entire series when I was 13. A great time for a boy to read Bond. A tough Alpha hero who always kept frame. Bond is part idealist, part realist. Fights Communism, usually the Soviets, not some silly billionaire industrialist. Rescues women, without pedestalizing them.

Goldfinger is especially offensive to SJWs, as Bond reveals himself to be homophobic. He has contempt for gays, “feels sorry” for them, believes them to be broken in some way, and “cures” a woman of her lesbianism in the end, by showing her what a real man is like.

I have never understood the appeal to Americans of Bond. It is enormously flattering of course but it is implausible as Britain retreated from Empire that the man who would save the world would be one of our 00 operatives. Still there was always Felix Leiter to hold up your end.

The movies become increasing absurd and anachronistic; referring to oneself firstly by ones surname is regrettably little done nowadays. I have never found Fleming a particularly good writer and thus his success at a time when there were a number of writers of thrillers of at least if not greater literary skills to be somewhat puzzling.

Every one (round here at least, of my generation) has the Lumberjack song word-perfect.

In the Fleming novels, Bond never saves the world. The novels are more modest in ambition than the movies.

In The Spy Who Loved Me movie, Bond saves the world from nuclear annihilation. In the novel, he saves a woman from a pair of thugs seeking to burn a motel to scam the insurance company.

In The Man With the Golden Gun movie, Scaramanga threatens the world energy supply, backed by the Red Chinese. In the novel, Scaramanga burns sugar fields in Jamaica, in another insurance scam.

I discovered Bond through the Roger Moore movies, as a kid. I caught up with the Sean Connery films. By the latter Moore films, my love for the movie Bond had run dry.

I like the Bond of the Fleming novels, set during the Cold War. In a period when the West still had some confidence in its Christian, European heritage. Before the rot of feminism, multiculturalism, diversity, PC, SJWs, gays and trannies, and a hatred for Christianity had set in.

If the Bond of the novels were a real person, he’d be in his 90s today. I imagine he’d be very bitter over what became of the Britain he’d fought for.

I liked the larger-than-life plots of the Bond movies from the 1960’s. The futristic design of sets. The style. The last “Bond” film I saw in the theaters was “The Living Daylights” (summer 1987) with Pierce Brosnan. It was okay……..I am sure the next “Bond” is going to be a roud-house-kicking-ass woman.

The vilian “Jaws” (Moonraker, and Live and Let Die) was from Fresno. He was doing commercials for a local used-car lot and a “wholesale” furniture place before he died.

“The lawsuit also claims Rogers and other female members faced derogatory language about their physical prowess and their intelligence, sexual jokes and innuendo, and offensive comments when they became pregnant and went on parental leave.”

A thread that goes through Lumberjack to end on Bond is a rare gem. Its remarkable because as much debate as usually occurs here, because of this I finally get to deploy my, “This isn’t an argument, an argument is a series of contradictory statements”……so forth

Jason:The vilian “Jaws” (Moonraker, and Live and Let Die) was from Fresno.

Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me.

The Spy Who Loved Me was essentially a remake of You Only Live Twice, Even so, it was the peak of the Moore Bond films. The best opening stunt. The best Bond girl (Barbara Bach is still my favorite Bond girl). Great chases and stunts and music. And not too outlandish.

Moonraker was too silly and satirical, sending Bond into outer space. It sparked a fan revolt. Cubby Broccoli listened, so that the following film, For Your Eyes Only was more realistic and modest in plot.

Thanks for the impressive rundown. Obviously I can’t speak from a soldier’s standpoint, but if I was a combat soldier who was going into harms way I would feel very uncomfortable with women on the team, especially knowing that standards were “changed” to enable them to get into the unit. It’s one thing to pick up the slack for a wounded fellow soldier who you know would carry their full weight if they were whole. It’s another thing to pick up the slack for a fellow soldier who is not able to carry their full weight going in.

Jason says:
February 24, 2018 at 5:12 pm
My father was in the USAF for four years during EIsenhower peacetime 1950’s (1955-1959). He signed up for a “four year” stint instead of the “standard two” at the time because he was promised more money upon an “honorable discharge”

He hated the whole culture of the military…..but he did serve, complete and recieved his Honorable Discharge. He entered with one stripe (airman) and left with one stripe (airman). My father fully agrees that he had an “attitude problem” while serving in the USAF.

-Good history there Jason.
My own father did his National Service in the Alpine Artillery (”Alpini”) of the Italian Army in 1948-52. Initially he trained with 3” donkey-transported Italian howitzers that were taken into the Alps. Later as the Cold War began with Marshall Tito threatening to take Trieste, Italy became a part of NATO and Eisenhower became the C-in-C. They were now armed with tractor-drawn American 6” artillery pieces, what he thought were naval guns on wheels, plus conventional and nuclear-tipped Honest John missiles. It would have been one big gory turkey shoot if the Yugoslav Army attacked. Fortunately it didn’t.
My father hated the army. He prided himself in entering as a private and leaving as one. In his last week, an Italian captain or colonel addressed the troops, trying to convince them to stay on. Volunteers were to be part of the ”Peace keeping force” in Palestine / Israel.My father, thinking that it was now okay since he was leaving, called out, ”If it’s so good, why don’t you go and get shot at by fanatics”? He was found out and spent the rest of the week in a jail cell.
I’ve never been part of the services, but my father was. The armed forces are what they are. They exist to defend the country. They have to -have to – brutalise men so that they will kill the enemies of the country. That is what armies do. They aren’t designed to be flouncy places where women can go to once their babies are dropped off in the nursery. It just doesn’t work that way.

Look, I never served my country either……and if it was mandatory like it was in my dad’s day…I would have served, done my job / duties and I cannot honestly say if it would have made me a better man………..in some areas, it probably would have.

I don’t discount the current folks who are serving. Even women who are getting the job done.

What I don’t like today is many younger veterans telling me “they put their ass on the line for me”
and this may sound “cold” to some, but I have replied “It is a voluntary military. YOU made the choice to put-your-ass-on-the-line; and in fact its been that way since what 1972? 1973? There was no draft. No one (not even a recruiter) put a gun to your head and said ‘you serve in the US Army or I’m gonna blow your brains out!’ Joining our solid armed forces means that you made a choice that wars, border skirmishes where you could get killed is a real possibility. Being put into very dangerous and stressful situations is a possibility. A choice YOU make. I don’t owe veterans low interest mortagages, I don’t owe them free “medical care for life” nor should I be ‘passed up’ for job opportunities or they be given prefernces because they did serve.

This makes people angry and even upset.

I just read the history “Hue 1968” by Mark Bowden. It recaps the ‘tet offensive’ in 1968 that destabilized our country’s involvement in Vietnam…….and by all factual accounts….the USA was actually winning the war befoer this event…………

Anyway…….I got so frustrated at the ‘officer class’ in the US forces and RVN forces during this read. Many rank n file guys with the boots on the ground knew what was up. Many WERE reporting of large movements of troops, and pacification on their end…..they were TOLD that “charlie” was planning a huge offensive. Ignored. Poo pooed by superiors in both commands and they (the rank and file soldier in both the US and RVN forces) ended up paying dearly.

I have more respect for the guy (even today) who did his job, came home used the skills they learned and found a life post military without telling me how “amazing they are” (and what is up with special forces today?????? EVERY vet I meet was in some special ops that only 1% make it into???)

Anyway…no disrespect to vets who did the job and did it right…………but I do have my opinions…..and IF i did serve, perhaps mine would be different as well.

feeriker…………back in 1981 the new top brass in the US Navy had “had enough” with a few issues concerning discipline and other matters……..all sailors were “getting a haircut” and no more “beards” and a restoration of standards was reintroduced……..glad the US Army is recognizing this at least

I realized after I posted my comment that some people might misunderstand that I was disagreeing with Dalrock. Totally not my intention. I was only pointing out to all the keyboard “alphas” how high this standard is.

I am 45 and am capable of carrying a 40lb backpack over rough Appalachian trail for 15 – 25 miles per day. My longest hike was over 550 miles. Probably the hardest day of my life was humping a 75lb pack for 17 miles. And the idea of carrying 150lbs for 15km staggers my mind. Until you’ve done it you have no idea.

Our marines are some tough guys, for sure. And if a woman cannot meet the requirements, she has no business being one.

I remember that Jason, it was called “Operation Upgrade” and ordered by president Reagan. That’s also when they began to implement mandatory “piss test” urinalysis testing for drugs across the military for enlisted personnel. They would pull random people out of morning muster and test them starting in 1981.

On another note, be careful what you vote for “ladies” as it may have unforseen consequences. Here we find a high school boy that wasn’t doing well in wrestling declare himself “transitioning” and beat up 52 girls to become the Texas girls state wrestling championship. He sometimes grows a mustache in the off season and college rules forbid him from wrestling as a “girl” due to his testosterone levels (which are those of a male obviously him being a male). You’re going to see a lot more of this in the future “ladies.” I’d say disordered males pretending to be females will hold most of the female top slots in sports at some point in the future in addition to non-disordered males holding all of the male top slots in sports. Back of the bus “ladies” and remember YOU voted for this. I didn’t but you did.

“’Put another way: Over 24 million of the 34 million people of that age group cannot join the armed forces — even if they wanted to’, said retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr and Bridget Handy, who authored the report, ‘The Looming National Security Crisis: Young Americans Unable to Serve in the Military’.”

The Army is ahead of the Marine Corps in the area of integrating women and lowering standards for them, so I’m sure this problem will be solved post haste.

I reread the article and see that you are correct BillyS. My bad, I rushed through it the first time obviously. Thanks for the correction. I still do wonder though if the future might encompass disordered, deceived men who think they’re women gaining supremacy over women in many female atheletic sports.

Sigma…..I hiked a 133 mile trek in thge Adirondack Mountains in June. I had a 73lb pack for the whole trek. I led a a very active Boy Scout Troop and I am active hiker / camper. When I started hitting elevation grades, and had to hike fifteen miles or so in torrential northeastern thunderstorm miles from nowhere (nearest road and town crossing was 35 miles ahead, and 22 miles behind)………man, I had to “embrace the suck” and deal. That trail turned to soup and I got soaked. I was 47 when I did that hike…..and I cannot imagine what a young marine has to do……and I’m def in the above average for being in general shape for my age…..but wow what these young recruits have to do is something else………….and if a woman cannot handle it, she doesn’t belong there.

The USMC puts on a clinic on how to lower standards to accommodate women while denying that anything is being done to accommodate women.

As usual, the “conservative” wing of American religion will be happy to help them along. This is a bit late, but I couldn’t help but remember your post when I saw a review of the recent “Black Panther” movie from a pastor associated with the Gospel Coalition:

It’s a hoot; Just like the USMC, the author wants a military option for women that will allow them to have their cake and eat it too. He starts his article by praising the film for showing that women can hold their own with men on the battlefield (“One can be an incredibly strong, competent, and loyal soldier while simultaneously a modest, feminine, beautiful and suitable spouse.”), but doesn’t let that stop him from informing us later that when the film’s villain kills some of those same women playing soldier it’s really a sign that he “doesn’t know how to treat women.”